Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

FightBack Forums _ Speeding and other Criminal Offences _ Alleged speeding offence

Posted by: VulcanEssex Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 13:57
Post #1345522

.

Posted by: cp8759 Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 15:24
Post #1345551

"whole version of events?" Are you having a laugh?
I'm really sorry but your entire post is very hard to follow, so I'm not even going to attempt a full analysis of your situation as far too much guesswork would be involved. I will try giving you a few pointers.

Firstly, ACPO no longer exists and it has been replaced by the NPCC, so the guidance you're looking at is out of date. If you want to cross-examine the civilian operator of the speed detection equipment (which I think is the thrust of your argument), you should have served a notice of objection to his witness statement being introduced as evidence, this should have been sent to the court officer and the prosecution within 7 days. Did you do this?
The same applies if you wish to cross-examine the "other" civilian witness.

Secondly, there is no need for a police officer to witness an offence for a prosecution to be successful, anybody can be a witness of fact. For example if a member of the public catches someone going through a red light on a dashboard camera and reports it, the matter would normally be dealt with by civilian back-office staff who would watch the video and issue a Notice of Intended Prosecution, there would be no need to waste a police officer's time as no police powers are required to prosecuted this sort of case. Speeding is different, as specialist training and equipment is needed, but the likelihood is that the civilian staff will testify that he is properly trained and the equipment was used correctly, so you would need some solid foundation to challenge this (speculation is not going to help you). You would need to cast doubt on the witness's credibility, competence, or the reliability of the equipment (there is a common law presumption that any equipment works as expected in the absence of any evidence to the contrary), which would not be easy.
Also as the guidelines are just guidelines, showing that some minor rule has not been followed to the letter will not help you, you would need to cast doubt a reasonable doubt on the reliability of the speed reading.

Thirdly there is no requirement for the van to have permission to park, or even to be parked legally. The fact that the person driving the van may or may not have committed a parking offence or contravention does not detract from the ability of someone sat in the back of the van from observing a crime being committed. To put it another way, if someone who's parked illegally witnesses a murder, should the murder walk free because the witnesses' evidence is "inadmissible"? Clearly the answer is no, so please abandon all hope of challenging this on the basis that maybe Highways England didn't give permission for the van to be there, this is utterly irrelevant and pursuing this is a waste of time.

Finally, where did you get the 24 hour deadline for a response from the CPS, is this what the Magistrate ordered? If you get a reply, your best bet would be to post the evidence on here (appropriately anonymised) and we'll take it from there.

p.s. when you say "I will be sending both of these letters via post as well,", I have no idea what letters you are talking about, if the Magistrate ordered disclosure there is no need for you to send any letters in relation to that.

Posted by: Jlc Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 15:45
Post #1345561

A few more comments.

Not sure where you got working days from - or the 2 days 'leeway'?

Awareness courses are discretionary and there is a time limit to complete one. (It's unlikely this assists in any way)

You don't believe you were speeding - it's your task to show the reading was incorrect and could be very expensive if they use expert witnesses. (Keeping with the flow or stating there was no 'danger' is no defence either - and seems to contradict your assertion of not speeding)

The prior opinion angle is often discussed on here but realistically isn't going to help over the speed measurement.

One presumes they have disclosed the material they intend to rely on - there isn't an automatic right to go on a 'fishing trip' for other items.

That excess is 3 points - unless you can show the reading was in error then I'd consider changing your plea to guilty. (I'm presuming they are only pursuing the speeding allegation)

QUOTE (VulcanEssex @ Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 13:57) *
2. They lose the NIP but not my attached letter, I'm not informed by this.
3. I get a Non-Disclosure letter saying I will appear in Court.

What did the attached letter say? (Although appears irrelevant to the current charge)

Posted by: cp8759 Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 15:55
Post #1345566

QUOTE (Jlc @ Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 15:45) *
One presumes they have disclosed the material they intend to rely on - there isn't an automatic right to go on a 'fishing trip' for other items.

Well there is such a right, the defendant has a right to "any prosecution material which has not previously been disclosed to the accused and which might reasonably be considered capable of undermining the case for the prosecution against the accused or of assisting the case for the accused.

It sounds like the OP has plead not guilty at a case management hearing and the Magistrate has told the CPS to provide the OP with the disclosure he requested within 24 hours, although that's just my guess at what the OP meant.

Posted by: Jlc Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 16:24
Post #1345579

QUOTE (cp8759 @ Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 15:55) *
QUOTE (Jlc @ Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 15:45) *
One presumes they have disclosed the material they intend to rely on - there isn't an automatic right to go on a 'fishing trip' for other items.

Well there is such a right, the defendant has a right to "any prosecution material which has not previously been disclosed to the accused and which might reasonably be considered capable of undermining the case for the prosecution against the accused or of assisting the case for the accused.

Indeed - but the caveat was my point.

Posted by: NewJudge Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 16:44
Post #1345582

QUOTE (cp8759 @ Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 15:55) *
It sounds like the OP has plead not guilty at a case management hearing and the Magistrate has told the CPS to provide the OP with the disclosure he requested within 24 hours, although that's just my guess at what the OP meant.

It's as good a guess as any but I'm not so sure it's correct:
QUOTE (VulcanEssex @ Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 13:57) *
I said to the Magistrate:

I will have to assume that the CPS will be dropping the case if there is no acknowledgement within 24 hours to this final Notice of disclosure laid out in previous Notices.


Maybe the 24 hours was a deadline set by the OP. I think it would be unusual for the court to set a deadline of just 24 hours for disclosure.

There seems to be all sorts of misunderstandings with this. One which sticks out:

“I argued that they said within 10 days, which means working days so in theory it wasn't late, as I included the 2 days leeway I'm legally allowed.”

Why does it mean 10 working days? Ten days is surely ten calendar days, unless it specifically says working days. What is the 2 days leeway apparently legally allowed?

An uphill struggle seems to loom with this, especially where so many strings are attached to a defence, most of which rely on technical or administrative argument. The court is going to be disinterested in the ACPO guidelines (even if they were current). It will be interested in the evidence to support the allegation. If it’s simply speeding, that will be the alleged speed and its measurement; the prevailing limit and who was driving. The first NIP was apparently late due to the OP’s failure so there is no defence there. No doubt if protracted correspondence had not ensued a course may have been offered, but that’s water that passed under the bridge long ago.

Good luck for tomorrow (I think you'll need it). It will be interesting to learn the outcome.

Posted by: VulcanEssex Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 17:02
Post #1345584

QUOTE
"Firstly, ACPO no longer exists and it has been replaced by the NPCC, so the guidance you're looking at is out of date. If you want to cross-examine the civilian operator of the speed detection equipment (which I think is the thrust of your argument), you should have served a notice of objection to his witness statement being introduced as evidence, this should have been sent to the court officer and the prosecution within 7 days. Did you do this?
The same applies if you wish to cross-examine the "other" civilian witness."


1. ACPO - So I should go over the NPCC for the same requirements?

2. The CPS introduced the Operator as a witness just the other day, not me, so I haven't had time to object.

3. Should I adjourn the case?

-----

QUOTE
"Finally, where did you get the 24 hour deadline for a response from the CPS, is this what the Magistrate ordered? If you get a reply, your best bet would be to post the evidence on here (appropriately anonymised) and we'll take it from there."

p.s. when you say "I will be sending both of these letters via post as well,", I have no idea what letters you are talking about, if the Magistrate ordered disclosure there is no need for you to send any letters in relation to that.


1. I sent the CPS several notices for disclosure, they didn't even meet the last notice which was a 24 hour notice for disclosure or the case should be dropped - they did listen to that one. What do you want to be posted?
2. I sent them emails and the same letters via post.

------

QUOTE
". Speeding is different, as specialist training and equipment is needed, but the likelihood is that the civilian staff will testify that he is properly trained and the equipment was used correctly, so you would need some solid foundation to challenge this (speculation is not going to help you). You would need to cast doubt on the witness's credibility, competence, or the reliability of the equipment (there is a common law presumption that any equipment works as expected in the absence of any evidence to the contrary), which would not be easy.
Also as the guidelines are just guidelines, showing that some minor rule has not been followed to the letter will not help you, you would need to cast doubt a reasonable doubt on the reliability of the speed reading."


1. My argument is that if they are going to cause my person financial harm through taking points that they conduct themselves appropriately according to every guideline. The range was 75m away at least on a 45 degree angle, there is a van next to me that could have altered the reading, it was heavy traffic, it would have been impossible for me to exceed the speed limit when the road was so busy So this is not going to stand?


QUOTE
"Not sure where you got working days from - or the 2 days 'leeway'?"


1. I read within the Act that we're allowed 2 days leeway. And if someone puts 5 days and not 7 days or multiples of, it's common knowledge that 5 days are working days, so the other 2 do not count.

QUOTE
"You don't believe you were speeding - it's your task to show the reading was incorrect and could be very expensive if they use expert witnesses. (Keeping with the flow or stating there was no 'danger' is no defence either - and seems to contradict your assertion of not speeding)"


1. What do you mean? They'll pass the costs onto me if I lose in bringing the Operator into the hearing?
2. I didn't request the Operator into the hearing. I was informed just on Saturday.

QUOTE
"One presumes they have disclosed the material they intend to rely on - there isn't an automatic right to go on a 'fishing trip' for other items.

That excess is 3 points - unless you can show the reading was in error then I'd consider changing your plea to guilty. (I'm presuming they are only pursuing the speeding allegation)

What did the attached letter say? (Although appears irrelevant to the current charge) "


1. I wrote to them for a video and a response for the Operator's notes, which clearly do not exist, as their absence would form part of my defence around not detailing the alleged offence within the guidelines.
2. What would happen with my defence presently if I continued to pled not guilty and go over all of the points the Operator didn't follow and how the Police used their discretion to their advantage and didn't admit they lost the original NIP?
3. The attached letter questioned the 14 days and then said the NIP was attached to this letter.

QUOTE
"It sounds like the OP has plead not guilty at a case management hearing and the Magistrate has told the CPS to provide the OP with the disclosure he requested within 24 hours, although that's just my guess at what the OP meant."


1. What is an OP? Is that me? I didn't attend a management hearing as they said they thought I needed a court appearance to explain my mitigation. I have been badgering the CPS to provide a bunch of material to me, which they ignored. The last 24 hour notice, they also missed by 2 days. I received their response claiming there isn't a video and there is no unused material (unsigned certificate). But as I already said, they have instructed they will be bringing the Operator along with the device, 'I'm asking the Officer to bring the evidence in question to court together with any contemporaneous records she made, the certificate and any records of her training in the use of such devices.' I was only informed by this Saturday just gone.

----------

Is there anything you want to see in terms of letters and evidence?

Posted by: AntonyMMM Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 17:15
Post #1345587

QUOTE (VulcanEssex @ Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 17:02) *
1. My argument is that if they are going to cause my person financial harm through taking points that they conduct themselves appropriately according to every guideline. The range was 75m away at least on a 45 degree angle, there is a van next to me that could have altered the reading, it was heavy traffic, it would have been impossible for me to exceed the speed limit when the road was so busy So this is not going to stand?


Guidelines are not the law (even if they were up to date) - they will not form a defence.
75m is well within the normal operating range of a laser device ( can be many times that) and the 45 degree angle would work in your favour.
How did this van next to you alter the reading ? Saying it could have is not a defence - you would need to have evidence of HOW it altered your reading.

If that is the basis of your case, it is going to be a very expensive day - sorry.


Posted by: Jlc Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 17:34
Post #1345590

Costs for a contested trial will likely start at £620 - more if other witnesses are attending should you lose. Figures over £2k are not unusual.

The cosine effect will reduce your measured speed versus actual. 45 degrees (this is unlikely) would be an actual speed way over 110mph. But they only have to show the limit was exceeded - the excess sets the sentence. In this case 50% of eeekly relevant earnings.

The ‘Loss’ of NIP response doesn’t seem relevant to the speeding allegation itself.

What Act are you referring to on these 2 days? I’m guessing you are referring to presumed delivery of 1st class post? (But again doesn’t seem relevant to the charge at hand)

Posted by: NewJudge Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 17:45
Post #1345597

QUOTE (VulcanEssex @ Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 17:02) *
3. Should I adjourn the case?

The matter of adjournment is not one for you. Only the court can order an adjournment. You can ask for one, but that's a different matter. What would be your reason for seeking an adjournment? What do you need time to do?
QUOTE (VulcanEssex @ Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 17:02) *
1. My argument is that if they are going to cause my person financial harm through taking points that they conduct themselves appropriately according to every guideline. The range was 75m away at least on a 45 degree angle, there is a van next to me that could have altered the reading, it was heavy traffic, it would have been impossible for me to exceed the speed limit when the road was so busy So this is not going to stand?


"...could have altered the reading"
is not going to carry much weight. You will have to show how it could and the likelihood of it actually happening in your case. Can you do this?
QUOTE (VulcanEssex @ Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 17:02) *
1. I read within the Act that we're allowed 2 days leeway. And if someone puts 5 days and not 7 days or multiples of, it's common knowledge that 5 days are working days, so the other 2 do not count.

What Act? Whose "common knowledge"?
QUOTE (VulcanEssex @ Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 17:02) *
1. What do you mean? They'll pass the costs onto me if I lose in bringing the Operator into the hearing?

Yes. If the prosecution has to introduce additional evidence to rebut your defence their costs (which they will be awarded if you lose) will probably increase. Their standard charge for a contested matter in the Magistrates' court is £620. They may ask for less if the matter is straightforward but if you cause them extra work and they have to produce additional witnesses they could ask for more.

QUOTE (VulcanEssex @ Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 17:02) *
2. What would happen with my defence presently if I continued to pled not guilty and go over all of the points the Operator didn't follow and how the Police used their discretion to their advantage and didn't admit they lost the original NIP?


It's my view (and only my view, based on what you've written) that you'd be convicted. I can't be sure from the information you've provided but it seems their discretion (to offer a course) was not used because it was too close to the prosecution deadline for them to do so. In any case, that is not a matter for the court tomorrow. The option of a course (should you be convicted) is not one available and you will be sentenced in accordance with the Sentencing Guidelines.








Posted by: VulcanEssex Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 17:53
Post #1345600

.

Posted by: Jlc Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 18:02
Post #1345601

You need to focus - speeding warning signs do not create a defence. Other vehicles aren’t going to assist - there may have been many NIPs issued.

It is far more likely the speed measurement was correct. 79mph is the starting point for enforcement but it doesn’t matter as your real speed was at least 79 so there’s no way to argue it down.

The enforcement session should include pre and post checks.

Posted by: VulcanEssex Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 18:08
Post #1345604

.

Posted by: NewJudge Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 18:23
Post #1345608

QUOTE (VulcanEssex @ Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 18:08) *
... I'm better off to adjourn the case and change my plea to guilty...


You do not need to seek an adjournment to change your plea. You can do it at any time, the earlier the better.

QUOTE (VulcanEssex @ Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 18:08) *
...and request a statuary non-conditional offer?


I don't know what you mean by that. If you mean you'd like to be sentenced at the Fixed Penalty level (£100 and 3 points) you may be disappointed. You can ask, and whilst Magistrates do have discretion to do just that, they are unlikely to do so in the circumstances you describe.

On a general note, trying to defend a speeding matter on the basis you describe is very likely to end in failure. The court is interested in evidence not maybes. There is no requirement for the prosecution to prove calibration or the accuracy of any measuring device unless you cast doubt on it and can support that doubt. Simply saying "prove it was working properly" will not do because it is assumed to be so unless you can cast doubt on it. The days of saying "I'll just ask them for the calibration certificate and if they don't have it I'll get off" are long gone (if indeed they ever existed).

Posted by: VulcanEssex Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 18:23
Post #1345609

.

Posted by: cp8759 Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 18:24
Post #1345610

QUOTE (VulcanEssex @ Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 17:53) *
QUOTE
"If that is the basis of your case, it is going to be a very expensive day - sorry."


All I need to do is cast doubt on the professionalism of the Operator. The basis is as follows:

This is not quite correct, it could have been the most unprofessional operator in the history of the world, but if they happened to get a correct speed reading, you can still be convicted.

QUOTE (VulcanEssex @ Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 17:53) *
1. There are no notes, only a generic statement says she saw cars speeding. This is a requirement to do. It is a requirement that the Police Officer, having formed an opinion that a vehicle is exceeding a speed limit, then uses an approved speed detection device to corroborate his personal opinion.

The absence of notes do not invalidate the statement, after all the written statement is admissible in evidence in its own right, while as I understand it the notes would need to be introduced as an exhibit.

QUOTE (VulcanEssex @ Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 17:53) *
2. There is limited evidence on calibration. How did she calibrate the device on the side of a dual carriageway?

Calibration is done about once a year, this will normally be proven by means of a calibration certificate.

QUOTE (VulcanEssex @ Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 17:53) *
3. The position of van required her to take notes and record she was following Health and safety. The van was on the end of a slip road, which could have endangered public safety. Also, the position of the van was masked by the garage and its signage. "Ministers have made a commitment that enforcement within the National Safety Camera Programme will be highly visible and drivers will be made fully aware of the presence of safety cameras. The camera and speed limit signs must be clearly visible to drivers and not obscured by other street furniture or hanging branches etc. Ministers want drivers to be fully aware of the speed limit at all times, but especially where camera enforcement takes place."

The fact that the van might have endangered public safety is irrelevant. What Ministers have or haven't said is irrelevant.

QUOTE (VulcanEssex @ Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 17:53) *
4. Heavy traffic flow at 4pm on Sunday, nobody could exceed the limit. Did she record the bikes in front of me doing at least 100mph? Did she notice and record the van next to me 100% exceeding the speed limit? Why did she choose my car? Was it because it was a noisy Skyline?

Do you have any evidence to show that the traffic flow at the material time was such that you couldn't have been speeding?
Whether other offenders were or weren't caught doesn't affect the accusation made against you.

QUOTE (VulcanEssex @ Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 17:53) *
5. NPCC (ACPO) guidelines which is 10% + 2mph of the posted speed limit: 79mph - this was my alleged speed literally on the cusp - If there was slip or the gear was even slightly out, it would have recorded less speed. I really do not believe I was exceeding the limit, especially as I had my 1.5 year old boy in the car. Was this a speed reducing measure to protect public safety? They aren’t there to catch speeding vehicles. How does the speed have any impact on safety? Has there been crash after crash at this site?

The law says you should do 70, the guidelines have no force of law. The guidelines exist because, if you're doing 70 (as the law requires) and there was "slip or the gear was even slightly out", you might accidentally do 73 or 74 and would not be prosecuted.

QUOTE (VulcanEssex @ Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 17:53) *
6. The request for disclosure was ignored until the last minute by the CPS. They were late in providing the disclosure certificate that is unsigned. Then they go onto say that the Operator may have notes etc - for me to fairly defend myself, I need to know the exact answers to my questions, which were not met.

It sounds like the CPS have been sloppy on the disclosure side, however it is unlikely the operator would not have notes as they wouldn't be filling in witness statements in the van at the time of the observation. If by the time of the hearing you still haven't had the notes, you could ask for an adjournment, but it's up to the court whether to grant it and ultimately you're just increasing the costs in the case, which you will pay if you lose. Whether it's worth risking further costs for the sake of seeing the notes is for you to decide, but I doubt there will be anything useful to you in the notes anyway.

QUOTE (VulcanEssex @ Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 17:53) *
7. The Police from the outset lost my original NIP and then used their powers of discretion to remove the s172, but not to offer me the full options including the Driver Training, which would have been the fair thing to do under the circumstances. There whole approach has been to get a conviction out of me rather than to understand they lost the original NIP, which caused all the extra nonsense and the court case. They are the ones who have not behaved properly as an example of good service, if they did, they would have amongst other things understood my concerns and used their discretion and put me on the Driver Training to avoid this conflict.

Did the police ever offer you a fixed penalty notice?

QUOTE (VulcanEssex @ Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 17:53) *
8. Namely the mobile camera enforcement sign requirements included in Schedule 4 (also in Rule 3 of the Handbook). "For mobile enforcement, co-located camera and speed limit repeater signs, or a sign to diagram 880 where appropriate, must be placed in advance of the point of entry to the site or route (including or excluding side roads at the discretion of the partnership) in the direction being enforced. Camera signs must also be placed thereafter at intervals of around 1 km throughout the site."

- I do not believe that the camera sign is within 1km of the site.

Schedule 4 of what? Can you point to a specific section?

QUOTE (VulcanEssex @ Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 17:53) *
9. I’ve asked the CPS for proof of training by the The Enquiry Officer and the Operator, they didn’t send anything. I’ve also asked them for the correct notes and the other APOC guidelines (I will be amending these), but they haven’t disclosed them, when they may help my case. My point is that if they are going to take points and cost me money for the hearing and the next 5 years, they should provide me with evidence that they have 100% followed legislation and guidelines. How is it fair they do not afford me the Driving Course in light of the circumstances, yet they seem to be able to push me around and do as they wish and they are not under scrutiny?

No they don't have to show they have followed 100% of anything, the guidelines are neither here nor there unless you can show that, as a result of not following the guidelines, the evidence of speed is unreliable.

Posted by: VulcanEssex Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 18:29
Post #1345613

QUOTE
Schedule 4 of what? Can you point to a specific section?


The ones laid before Parliament by the Secretary of State in TSRGD 2002 (and subsequent amendments) as set out in the Handbook of Rules and Guidance for the National Safety Camera Programme for England and Wales 2006/07, which reflects the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD) 2002.

QUOTE
Did the police ever offer you a fixed penalty notice?


Yes

Posted by: cp8759 Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 18:37
Post #1345614

QUOTE (VulcanEssex @ Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 18:08) *
JLC - So basically if I go in there and start wheeling off these points, I will look like a twit? In light of all your feedback, I'm better off to adjourn the case and change my plea to guilty and request a statuary non-conditional offer?

The Professional Standards and also the Police seemed to believe I could mitigate due to how the service was so poor.

We still don't have a clear picture of what happened when, but you do not appear to have any viable defence (You are not even sure whether you were speeding or not). On that basis, you might be better off pleading guilty rather than risking hundreds of pounds in costs at a trial where you have no real dispute with the prosecutions other than a desire to put them to proof.

If you can show that, had it not been for the poor service, you would have paid a fixed penalty notice, you can ask the magistrates to sentence you at the fixed penalty level. If they are satisfied that it's purely because of police incompetence (in losing the NIP and whatever else) that you were not offered a fixed penalty, they should impose a fine at the fixed penalty level and award three points.

QUOTE (VulcanEssex @ Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 18:29) *
QUOTE
Schedule 4 of what? Can you point to a specific section?


The ones laid before Parliament by the Secretary of State in TSRGD 2002 (and subsequent amendments) as set out in the Handbook of Rules and Guidance for the National Safety Camera Programme for England and Wales 2006/07, which reflects the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD) 2002.

The TSRGD 2002 have been repealed and replaced by TSRGD 2016, a handbook does not have force of law (and it's likely to be outdated if it's over 10 years old). The TSRGD 2016 are available online from http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/contents/made (they are amended by http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2017/1086/contents/made) but to my knowledge there is no requirement in law for signs to be placed in the vicinity of a mobile speed camera van.

QUOTE (VulcanEssex @ Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 18:29) *
QUOTE
Did the police ever offer you a fixed penalty notice?


Yes

Then if you turned it down, the Magistrates will sentence you based on the standard guidelines https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/item/speeding-revised-2017/

Posted by: VulcanEssex Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 18:38
Post #1345615

QUOTE (cp8759 @ Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 18:30) *
QUOTE (VulcanEssex @ Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 18:08) *
JLC - So basically if I go in there and start wheeling off these points, I will look like a twit? In light of all your feedback, I'm better off to adjourn the case and change my plea to guilty and request a statuary non-conditional offer?

The Professional Standards and also the Police seemed to believe I could mitigate due to how the service was so poor.

We still don't have a clear picture of what happened when, but you do not appear to have any viable defence (You are not even sure whether you were speeding or not). On that basis, you might be better off pleading guilty rather than risking hundreds of pounds in costs at a trial where you have no real dispute with the prosecutions other than a desire to put them to proof.

If you can show that, had it not been for the poor service, you would have paid a fixed penalty notice, you can ask the magistrates to sentence you at the fixed penalty level. If they are satisfied that it's purely because of police incompetence (in losing the NIP and whatever else) that you were not offered a fixed penalty, they should impose a fine at the fixed penalty level and award three points.

Posted by: southpaw82 Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 18:40
Post #1345618

QUOTE (VulcanEssex @ Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 18:29) *
The ones laid before Parliament by the Secretary of State in TSRGD 2002 (and subsequent amendments) as set out in the Handbook of Rules and Guidance for the National Safety Camera Programme for England and Wales 2006/07, which reflects the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD) 2002.

Which have been repealed, as of 22 April 2016. In any case, the TSRGS merely says what the signs must look like; it does not impose a requirement for camera warning signs to be present.

Posted by: cp8759 Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 18:47
Post #1345620

QUOTE (VulcanEssex @ Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 18:37) *
Thanks for the advice. My head is spinning on this TBH. It's not fair how they operate with impunity, I wanted to stand against the way I was treated and how the Police and CPS conduct themselves in situations like this. I did not knowingly exceed the limit, I had my boy in the car. Motorbikes went past the van at silly speeds and I didn't even see the van until it was too late as other cars and the garage signage was obscuring the view - literally it was heavy traffic flow. People drive at this speed all of the time, just the other day cars were passing a Police car at 80mph.

So unless I manage ending up with a Magistrate that dislikes Police and favours all my points about the principle of the matter, I am certainly toast.

Unfortunately nobody is given a sporting chance of doing 79 without getting caught, so you cannot complaint about being "caught" unfairly. There are some requirements the authorities must abide by (and I stress there is no indication they have failed to comply with their legal duties in this case), however the way the court would look at it, speeding is a strict liability offence and it is up to you to make every effort to ensure that you do not exceed 70.

The fact that you didn't see the van is something you really shouldn't mention, even if you plead guilty and simply make submissions in mitigation. The magistrates might take that as an admission that, had there been no van, you would have had no qualms about driving over 70.


Posted by: Jlc Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 18:48
Post #1345622

Principles can be expensive. If you are to defend you need to focus on something particular - my 'fishing trip' reference earlier was basically that. You seem to be scouring any possible loophole which is unlikely to be there.

Post #6 covered what matters but it doesn't not appear you have something that will convince the bench. A procedural error may still be there but it's not a sound strategy.

You mention mitigation - that’s trying to limit the impact. (I.e. the allegation is accepted)

Posted by: cp8759 Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 18:53
Post #1345624

QUOTE (VulcanEssex @ Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 18:38) *
QUOTE
We still don't have a clear picture of what happened when

What do you need to know or see?

To form a complete picture, to be honest we'd need to post all the paperwork you've sent and received since the start, really it would have been much better if you'd posted on here when you first got the first NIP. If your hearing is tomorrow I'm not sure there's much point now.

Posted by: VulcanEssex Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 19:05
Post #1345628

.

Posted by: southpaw82 Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 19:06
Post #1345629

QUOTE (VulcanEssex @ Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 19:05) *
I may adjorn the case anyway as the cps were late in confirming disclosure, which wasn't my fault.

You keep saying this. For the avoidance of doubt, it's not up to you whether an adjournment is granted. You can only make an application, which the court can decline or accept.

Posted by: VulcanEssex Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 19:24
Post #1345633

How should I send the documents? I have about 40-odd of them?

Posted by: fh3hd7dh3d1qz Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 19:27
Post #1345634

If its a LTI laser speed measuring device, pull the patent from the US. In the patent they openly admit the device can get speed readings off stationary objects.
You may wonder why?

Well basically this is a device which uses light as a constant velocity, although some scientists would like to point out, light is not a constant velocity anyway as heat hazes on the road, fog, wet weather and other types of weather demonstrate.
It fires 3 beams of laser light which spread out over distance, measured in radians and then reflects off objects back to the sensor in the device which detects the reflection.
Now whilst there is some beam spread, the device also has a very high tech device a tube over the sensor so it limits the reflections from the periphery. If you have ever held up a toilet roll to your eye or used binoculars you will see how these block out everything from the periphery.

The 3 beams of light are emitted over a 0.3second window. An algorithm on the device measures the intensity of the reflections for each laser projection and then takes the 3 from each which have matching light intensity.

Problem with this algorithm is that, you are not guaranteed to have got a reflection from the same part of the vehicle. This is what is called SLIP as the device is panned to track the vehicle when obtaining the speed measurement.
If your vehicle is 2.1 metres long, then this process has the accuracy of being + or - 30mph unless you are directly in front or behind the vehicle.

In UK courts, as its magistrates you wont change the law, you need to go to high court or crown court to set a legal presidence, and in the interests of fairness you need to state what evidence you plan to rely on in court in order for the CPS to build a defence against it, if they need to.

There is so much misdirection put out by thse laser handhelds, all you need to do is stick to the laws of Physics, it is after all a very basic version of what is being used in driverless vehicles so the legal system can not pick and choose what laws of physics they want to apply and what they want to ignore.

So anyway as there is no way to get light to identify where its come from in a reflection other than changing its wavelength ie colour, all you need to ask the CPS to do is provide the evidence which states what parts of the vehicle the reflections come from.

They wont be able to do this, its impossible in this device to do this unlike the LIDAR systems in the driverless cars, so they can either choose to mess you around because they know your mobile phone was logging onto cell masts near the roads you were travelling on at the time more quickly than would be expected for someone sticking to the speed limit or they can drop it.

Either way, if you cant get this info and need to blag it in court, then perhaps you might be able to get away with pointing out that standard common knowledge scientific information should not have to be submitted as evidence, in order to challenge the CPS lawyers just like you wouldnt expect to have confirm you would be speaking English in court, or using the Hexadecimal number method instead of decimal as its common practice in the UK.


-------
If teachers explained how physics can be used to get off speeding tickets, they might find male pupils do better at physics.





Posted by: Jlc Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 19:38
Post #1345637

Yes, things are possible but matters are presumed correct unless the contrary is shown.

Posted by: VulcanEssex Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 19:58
Post #1345643

QUOTE (fh3hd7dh3d1qz @ Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 19:27) *
If its a LTI laser speed measuring device, pull the patent from the US. In the patent they openly admit the device can get speed readings off stationary objects.
You may wonder why?

Well basically this is a device which uses light as a constant velocity, although some scientists would like to point out, light is not a constant velocity anyway as heat hazes on the road, fog, wet weather and other types of weather demonstrate.
It fires 3 beams of laser light which spread out over distance, measured in radians and then reflects off objects back to the sensor in the device which detects the reflection.
Now whilst there is some beam spread, the device also has a very high tech device a tube over the sensor so it limits the reflections from the periphery. If you have ever held up a toilet roll to your eye or used binoculars you will see how these block out everything from the periphery.

The 3 beams of light are emitted over a 0.3second window. An algorithm on the device measures the intensity of the reflections for each laser projection and then takes the 3 from each which have matching light intensity.

Problem with this algorithm is that, you are not guaranteed to have got a reflection from the same part of the vehicle. This is what is called SLIP as the device is panned to track the vehicle when obtaining the speed measurement.
If your vehicle is 2.1 metres long, then this process has the accuracy of being + or - 30mph unless you are directly in front or behind the vehicle.

In UK courts, as its magistrates you wont change the law, you need to go to high court or crown court to set a legal presidence, and in the interests of fairness you need to state what evidence you plan to rely on in court in order for the CPS to build a defence against it, if they need to.

There is so much misdirection put out by thse laser handhelds, all you need to do is stick to the laws of Physics, it is after all a very basic version of what is being used in driverless vehicles so the legal system can not pick and choose what laws of physics they want to apply and what they want to ignore.

So anyway as there is no way to get light to identify where its come from in a reflection other than changing its wavelength ie colour, all you need to ask the CPS to do is provide the evidence which states what parts of the vehicle the reflections come from.

They wont be able to do this, its impossible in this device to do this unlike the LIDAR systems in the driverless cars, so they can either choose to mess you around because they know your mobile phone was logging onto cell masts near the roads you were travelling on at the time more quickly than would be expected for someone sticking to the speed limit or they can drop it.

Either way, if you cant get this info and need to blag it in court, then perhaps you might be able to get away with pointing out that standard common knowledge scientific information should not have to be submitted as evidence, in order to challenge the CPS lawyers just like you wouldnt expect to have confirm you would be speaking English in court, or using the Hexadecimal number method instead of decimal as its common practice in the UK.


-------
If teachers explained how physics can be used to get off speeding tickets, they might find male pupils do better at physics.


It is a:

reflex laser cam sl

Interesting... :-) What about this camera then?

Posted by: Logician Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 20:01
Post #1345646

If you attempt a defence based on the information in post #27, you may find the court does order an adjournment at the request of the prosecution as this was something you did not raise at the case management hearing. The CPS will then bring an expert witness to the adjourned trial in order to refute these points. Unless you have your own expert witness to support you, your defence is certain to be shot down. Even with your own expert witness that is very likely, as was the case with Dr Science, which you can find by searching on here. If you lose you will be ordered to pay the costs of the CPS expert witness which might be of the order of £2000.

I can only agree with the points previously made, guidelines are just that and failure to follow them is not in itself a defence, you would have to show that the reading was actually affected. Many of these guidelines are quite irrelevant to the actual measurement anyway. There is no defence in failing to display warning signs, failure to act against other vehicles or speculation about what MIGHT have affected the reading. The cosine effect can only act to give a lower reading of speed.

On the basis of what you have written here, your best bet is to change your plea to guilty and save some of what this will otherwise cost you.

Posted by: VulcanEssex Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 20:09
Post #1345653



Please let me know when you have downloaded the fille

Posted by: fh3hd7dh3d1qz Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 20:15
Post #1345656

I'll add one other thing, anyone with an interest in something can declare themselves as an expert witness in court under English law, so if you plan to represent yourself and rely on the above info, also state your interest and thus your assertion you will be standing as an expert witness despite the obvious conflict of interest.

Bottom line is, they can only use wavelength and light intensity in the algo to work out _a_ speed, the device is totally and utterly incapable of determining where the reflections came from on the vehicle and for the reason the speed reading can only be taken as an estimate due to the margin of error the length of the vehicle introduces to the equation.

I'd even be happy to download the firmware on any of these devices, reverse engineer the code to prove this, if anyone has a device. All I need to do, is open up the device, attach a clip of sorts like a SOIC clip and then download the firmware using flashrom and a raspberrypi!

If anyone knows the part number of the light sensor, you can look up the part number online and then see whats its exact properties are, quite likely only recording light intensity, which makes it even easier to destroy in court.


Unfortunately I've never been able to escalate this to Crown Court to set a legal precedence.

I'll leave it up to your conscience if you want to use this info, because I can tell you now, theres more ways than this to tell if someone is speeding with the technology most of us use.

Posted by: VulcanEssex Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 20:20
Post #1345659

.

Posted by: Jlc Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 20:20
Post #1345661

This isn't helping the OP and is getting surreal.

The length of the vehicle is likely to be totally irrelevant here unless the OP can show the laser was 'slipped'. I wish I could see the video.

QUOTE (fh3hd7dh3d1qz @ Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 20:15) *
If anyone knows the part number of the light sensor, you can look up the part number online and then see whats its exact properties are, quite likely only recording light intensity, which makes it even easier to destroy in court.

...and Logician's summary of a £2k bill is more likely for this flight of fantasy.

Posted by: VulcanEssex Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 20:22
Post #1345662

QUOTE (Jlc @ Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 20:20) *
This isn't helping the OP and is getting surreal.

The length of the vehicle is likely to be totally irrelevant here unless the OP can show the laser was 'slipped'. I wish I could see the video.

QUOTE (fh3hd7dh3d1qz @ Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 20:15) *
If anyone knows the part number of the light sensor, you can look up the part number online and then see whats its exact properties are, quite likely only recording light intensity, which makes it even easier to destroy in court.

...and Logician's summary of a £2k bill is more likely for this flight of fantasy.


I wish I could see the video, but apparently there isn't one with these Lasercam Flex SL things, they store pictures.


Posted by: cp8759 Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 20:35
Post #1345671

QUOTE (VulcanEssex @ Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 20:20) *
"Unfortunately I've never been able to escalate this to Crown Court to set a legal precedence."

Why not? I'm just wondering how this would go down even tomorrow.

BTW to the others - I don't want this alternative idea to sidetrack any conventional ideas.

Have you changed address between the date of the offence and today, and if so when?

Posted by: southpaw82 Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 20:39
Post #1345673

QUOTE (fh3hd7dh3d1qz @ Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 20:15) *
I'll add one other thing, anyone with an interest in something can declare themselves as an expert witness in court under English law


Not really. The court has to accept that they are, in fact, an expert.

QUOTE
so if you plan to represent yourself and rely on the above info, also state your interest and thus your assertion you will be standing as an expert witness despite the obvious conflict of interest.


Despite the obvious conflict of interest? That instantly disqualifies him from being an expert witness, even if he met the other criteria.

QUOTE
Unfortunately I've never been able to escalate this to Crown Court to set a legal precedence.


Precedent isn’t set in the Crown Court either.

Go and read http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=107010

Posted by: VulcanEssex Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 20:40
Post #1345674

.

Posted by: Jlc Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 20:44
Post #1345677

The statement mentions pre and post checks.

I'd estimate the angle of measurement at 8 degrees - so the measured speed is 99% of the actual. (There's a foreshortening effect on the camera) Whilst the accuracy of the device may be given as +/-1mph that works both ways, along with the cosine effect and rounding down.

It's a good enough shot to convict for me.

Posted by: cp8759 Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 20:46
Post #1345678

So from looking at the paperwork, there is a very different picture from your rambling open post (Sorry not having a dig here, I'm just trying to be objective). It appears for some reason the DVLA did not have your correct address, so the first NIP was returned as undeliverable. It was not lost by the CPS.

The police somehow tracked down your correct address and sent a new NIP, but by the time you returned it, it was too late to go on a course, so they offered you a fixed penalty. Regardless of who was at fault for the first NIP being returned, you should have really accepted the fixed penalty at that point. You refused the fixed penalty, and now you're going to court as a result.

For future reference, you cannot "impose" deadlines on the CPS or anyone else, also do not include wording like "without prejudice" or "claim against me", that sort of terminology is for civil cases and is irrelevant for a criminal case (and using the wrong terminology conveys the impression you don't know what you're doing).

The witness statement is reasonably detailed and I cannot see any obvious evidential flaws. I think you should plead guilty and ask for leniency in light of the fact that the excess was modest.

QUOTE (VulcanEssex @ Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 20:40) *
I changed my address literally in between the alleged offence and them finding my details on the insurance database. I made all the changes legally. They didn't pick it up somehow so it was returned to them, hence the material that shows it was returned to them. I didn't know they didn't pick it up so I questioned the 14 days.

It's now academic, but did you arrange for your post to be forwarded, or to go and pick it up?
Regardless, in your position I would have accepted the fixed penalty when it was offered.

Posted by: Jlc Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 20:46
Post #1345681

I understand your frustration but I note your fishing trip in your letters - this never works.

Posted by: fh3hd7dh3d1qz Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 20:50
Post #1345682

Aerial topology. A map showing where the laser speed device was and the target vehicle was, plus the claimed speed will show if slip has likely taken place if the angles & distance are right when taking into account the beam spread measured in radians.

Printing off an OS map or even using a zoomed in Google map with matching satellite imagery to show the road matches the satellite image when both pieces of paper are held together and up to the light, may help along with a pencil and protracter.

Depending on the layout of the road, you may not even need to have a video to prove slip will have been inevitable, if its drawn on a map and shown over 3 copies of the map one each for 0.1seconds of the 0.3window of time used to calculate a speed, where the car would be positioned on the road, along with the beam spread drawn out like a pie chart segment indicating the maximum area the laser can cover.
This way you dont even need to worry about the light sensor and what angles it accepts reflections from and what it discards.

70mph = 112.63498920086Kph
1,126,349 metres per hour or
18772 metres per minute or
312 metres a second or
31.2 metres every 0.1 second.

Tracking a vehicle which has moved 93.6 metres in the 0.3 seconds it takes to calculate the speed at the right angles will guarantee slip, all that needs to be determined is the angles.

And for the record I sacked Nick Freeman aka Mr Loophole from representing me on my 2nd court case and represented myself with success as the CPS took my version of events.

Sure the legal approach might show a slip up in procedures, but lets face it lawyers are generally not mathematicians, engineers or coders, and hackers know all too well how features can be bugs, just look at the latest CPU bugs in the news affecting Intel, AMD & ARM.
But its easier to show the device is incapable of accurate speed measurements in the first place imo.

All the OP needs to do is zoom into Google maps, place a marker where the laser speed device was situated, state the distance shown at the time the speed was calculated and what lane, if more than one, the vehicle was positioned in, along with the length of the vehicle in question, from there you can work out quickly if slip occurred.

Would there be any demand for app to be available in the various smart phone app stores that provided pictorial slides to show how slip was inevitable in some cases?

Hackers know there is more than one way to skin the cat.


Posted by: VulcanEssex Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 20:50
Post #1345683

.

Posted by: southpaw82 Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 20:55
Post #1345686

What is a "non conditional offer"?

Posted by: peterguk Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 20:55
Post #1345687

QUOTE (fh3hd7dh3d1qz @ Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 20:50) *
Stuff


All irrelephant to OP's case.

Posted by: VulcanEssex Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 21:00
Post #1345689

.

Posted by: southpaw82 Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 21:02
Post #1345690

QUOTE (VulcanEssex @ Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 21:00) *
Non conditional offer of 3 points and 60 quid fine. Maybe they aren't the words I don't have it in front of me

A conditional offer of 3 points and £100 maybe?

Posted by: VulcanEssex Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 21:10
Post #1345692

Indeed.

Posted by: peterguk Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 21:16
Post #1345693

QUOTE (VulcanEssex @ Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 21:10) *
Indeed.

So the option is to go for the science or attempt to mitigate and reduce


If you have (very) deep pockets, and won't moan if you have them emptied, go for the science. Personally, i would not.

The whole story is full of fluff and bluster. Bottom line seems to have been a few admin issues. Does that affect the speeding allegation?

Posted by: StationCat Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 21:20
Post #1345696

QUOTE (fh3hd7dh3d1qz @ Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 20:50) *
70mph = 112.63498920086Kph
1,126,349 metres per hour or
18772 metres per minute or
312 metres a second or
31.2 metres every 0.1 second.

Tracking a vehicle which has moved 93.6 metres in the 0.3 seconds it takes to calculate the speed at the right angles will guarantee slip, all that needs to be determined is the angles.

70 mph is 31.3 metres per second not 312. So it moved 10.4 metres in 0.3 seconds. If you are going to offer 'scientific' advice please check it before you post wink.gif

With regard to the slip issue - if this laser speed gun is similar to the Ultralyte, then its beam divergence is about 1 foot per 100 metres. This ping was at a distance of 74 metres so the beam is less than one foot wide - not much chance of slip when aimed on the front of a car.

Posted by: baggins1234 Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 21:27
Post #1345700

QUOTE (fh3hd7dh3d1qz @ Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 20:50) *
All the OP needs to do is zoom into Google maps, place a marker where the laser speed device was situated, state the distance shown at the time the speed was calculated and what lane, if more than one, the vehicle was positioned in, along with the length of the vehicle in question, from there you can work out quickly if slip occurred.


So you’d need to know exactly where the device was located? Not just the van but where exactly the device itself was? Both northings and eastings?
Exactly where the targeted vehicle was? Northings and eastings?
Exactly where on the targetted vehicle the laser was placed? Taking into account a bonnet perhaps curved in three dimensions.

Oh and bear in mind the caveat on Google maps about accuracy. We had a poster here a while back who’d overlooked that....

Happy days

Posted by: VulcanEssex Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 21:56
Post #1345721

.

Posted by: Jlc Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 22:00
Post #1345722

QUOTE (VulcanEssex @ Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 21:10) *
So the option is to go for the science or attempt to mitigate and reduce

The sentencing guidelines are well known - there's little you can do in regards to reducing those. (For a guilty plea costs of £85, surcharge of 10% of the fine (min £30) - normally there's a 33% reduction for guilty plea but this now be lower (25% possibly) for a later guilty plea)

Posted by: StationCat Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 22:03
Post #1345723

QUOTE (VulcanEssex @ Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 21:56) *
My overall point is that they the police used a sledgehammer to crack a nut. If they used their discretion as they did with the s172 then I would have accepted the training just to avoid this.
They did - you were offered a fixed penalty but rejected it
QUOTE (VulcanEssex @ Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 21:56) *
I wasn't aware was exceeding the limit literally all the cars around me were doing roughly the same speed.
So you were exceeding the speed limit?


Posted by: Jlc Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 22:06
Post #1345724

QUOTE (VulcanEssex @ Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 21:56) *
Their equipment as Mr science points out is not accurate.

That's not true. There are circumstances were the reading can be wrong but it is far more likely you were going at 80mph - it's not crime of the century.

As I said you need to focus - even if you were the only car pinged and the bikers got off it doesn't provide any defence for you.

QUOTE (VulcanEssex @ Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 21:56) *
I believe my cards singled out because it is a skyline.

I think you've hit the nail on the head.

Posted by: VulcanEssex Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 22:10
Post #1345726

.

Posted by: captain swoop Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 22:12
Post #1345727

You don't know you were 'singled out' the other cars you were with could also have been pinged.

Posted by: southpaw82 Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 22:15
Post #1345730

QUOTE (VulcanEssex @ Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 22:10) *
And they have to offer me the conditional offer next


Could you show me the relevant law for that?

QUOTE
and will claim for thd damages this will cause me over the next five years.

Good luck with that.

Posted by: VulcanEssex Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 22:30
Post #1345732

.

Posted by: NewJudge Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 22:46
Post #1345738

I don't know whether fh3hd7dh3d1qz is for real or having a complicated laugh but this is no laughing matter for VulcanEssex. One particular piece of advice I would not rely on is this:

QUOTE (fh3hd7dh3d1qz @ Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 20:15) *
I'll add one other thing, anyone with an interest in something can declare themselves as an expert witness in court under English law, so if you plan to represent yourself and rely on the above info, also state your interest and thus your assertion you will be standing as an expert witness despite the obvious conflict of interest.


An expert witness is a person who has knowledge of a specific subject beyond that of a layman (or a "non-expert"). Pitching up and saying "I have an interest in laser speed detection devices and so I am an expert" is not likely to cut the mustard. I have an interest in the Apollo Moon programme. I followed them all live on TV and have since read a few books. But I am no more an expert than the next man. Add to this that an expert witness is supposed to be independent and it is easy to see why a defendant would be hard pushed to be accepted as an expert witness in the circumstances described.

Another puzzle is that if the principles of physics outlined make laser speed devices so unreliable it's a wonder nobody with the time to spare (and expertise) has managed to highlight this in the past.

With your limited time available I think it is a bit late to embark on a scientific challenge to the accuracy of an approved device.

Posted by: cp8759 Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 22:58
Post #1345740

QUOTE (NewJudge @ Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 22:46) *
With your limited time available I think it is a bit late to embark on a scientific challenge to the accuracy of an approved device.

More importantly, this is a fight for someone who was 100% not speeding and/or can afford a few tens of thousands in possible legal costs

Posted by: Fredd Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 08:55
Post #1345779

The OP seems to have taken his ball away, so there's little point in providing any more advice here. Hopefully he's not relying on deleting his posts to make them disappear from internet search engine caches.

Posted by: 666 Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 09:25
Post #1345794

QUOTE (StationCat @ Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 22:20) *
QUOTE (fh3hd7dh3d1qz @ Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 20:50) *
70mph = 112.63498920086Kph
1,126,349 metres per hour or
18772 metres per minute or
312 metres a second or
31.2 metres every 0.1 second.

Tracking a vehicle which has moved 93.6 metres in the 0.3 seconds it takes to calculate the speed at the right angles will guarantee slip, all that needs to be determined is the angles.

70 mph is 31.3 metres per second not 312. So it moved 10.4 metres in 0.3 seconds. If you are going to offer 'scientific' advice please check it before you post wink.gif

With regard to the slip issue - if this laser speed gun is similar to the Ultralyte, then its beam divergence is about 1 foot per 100 metres. This ping was at a distance of 74 metres so the beam is less than one foot wide - not much chance of slip when aimed on the front of a car.


Further, the elapsed time between three readings 0.1 seconds apart is actually 0.2, not 0.3, so the distance travelled is a mere six metres.

Posted by: IanJohnsonWS14 Thu, 11 Jan 2018 - 08:25
Post #1346080

QUOTE (Fredd @ Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 09:55) *
Hopefully he's not relying on deleting his posts to make them disappear from internet search engine caches.


I missed the original but it is on Google Cache, amusing.

Posted by: Jlc Fri, 12 Jan 2018 - 08:46
Post #1346403

I'm surprised the OP hasn't been back to update us.

Posted by: Logician Fri, 12 Jan 2018 - 10:14
Post #1346424

QUOTE (Jlc @ Fri, 12 Jan 2018 - 08:46) *
I'm surprised the OP hasn't been back to update us.

To boast of his triumphal acquittal despite our scepticism?

Posted by: cp8759 Fri, 12 Jan 2018 - 12:13
Post #1346455

QUOTE (Jlc @ Fri, 12 Jan 2018 - 08:46) *
I'm surprised the OP hasn't been back to update us.

I've asked the court for the outcome, I'll post an update when I get a response

Posted by: cp8759 Tue, 23 Jan 2018 - 11:51
Post #1349681

In the end VulcanEssex decided to plead guilty.

Outcome:
Fine of £75
Victim surcharge £30
CPS costs of £85
Driving licence endorsed with 3 points

We have no idea what he said in mitigation, but given how badly it could have gone, I think he's done quite well.

Posted by: Jlc Tue, 23 Jan 2018 - 12:13
Post #1349693

QUOTE (cp8759 @ Tue, 23 Jan 2018 - 11:51) *
We have no idea what he said in mitigation, but given how badly it could have gone, I think he's done quite well.

Seems to follow the sentencing guidelines - I think the OP said they had no earnings so were caught by the minimum level. Costs and surcharge all normal.

I think they made the right decision too. (Aside from accepting course/CoFP)

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)